If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Websleuths News

Join Websleuths Radio for the final discussion of THE KILLING SEASON
with Josh Zemam, Rachel Mills and special guests including Bob Kolker author of Lost Girls

ITA that patience and persistence may be the best course to ensure a conviction of the guilty party. The part that I find frustrating is that that may mean years that a child is raised by a murderer. A few years are a good portion of any childhood.

Unfortunately this can and does happen. It is not right and it is not fair.

Double-murderer O.J. Simpson is one such example. His rel'p with his youngest daughter was particularly volatile, with her calling 911 on at least two occasions growing up. She was 9 when her mom was murdered. Now 24. F'd up and unhappy and was stuck with an emotionally abusive, narcissistic, drug-abusing, killer father. At least she's old enough to escape him now.

These killers screw up their kids lives forevermore with their selfish actions. The kids don't recover from having their mothers torn away from them. And then later, when they're older, they learn the truth about the nature of what happened to mommy.

You are correct in the direction you are headed. Some grand jury indictment sessions are kept "secret" in NC as are the presentment hearings to the grand jury. In these presentment cases the DA has the opportunity to present the case to be heard with the opportunity to get an indictment or to be told that they need to strengthen their cases in particular areas. No witnesses are called. No one is told outside the DA's office or LE involved on the case that it has taken place. BC would not be told. However, keep in mind that time and money would prevent the DA from presenting multiple times. I am not saying that they would never go back to GJ if told that they had a very good case but just needed one more thing, but they usually do not go until they are pretty sure they are ready to avoid having this happen.

Fran - thanks for your latest link above to 14 NBC. Seems Mark Sullivan hit the nail on the head : "Tell me everything you know so we won't be surprised at trial ". Interesting comment.

The same attorney (article says Sullivan is a family law specialist that News14 interviewed...) also notes- ... "the documents requested in the subpoenas are not out of the ordinary when custody of children is at stake."

So, the action by BC and his attorneys doesn't seem to necessarily be 'out of the ordinary', or 'ruthless' necessarily, but rather, quite typical in a custody case. Time will tell I suppose how much is allowed by the judge and how much is considered relevant, but at least the requesting part... seems to not be uncommon. Good to know.

The same attorney (article says Sullivan is a family law specialist that News14 interviewed...) also notes- ... "the documents requested in the subpoenas are not out of the ordinary when custody of children is at stake."

So, the action by BC and his attorneys doesn't seem to necessarily be 'out of the ordinary', or 'ruthless' necessarily, but rather, quite typical in a custody case. Time will tell I suppose how much is allowed by the judge and how much is considered relevant, but at least the requesting part... seems to not be uncommon. Good to know.

The same attorney (article says Sullivan is a family law specialist that News14 interviewed...) also notes- ... "the documents requested in the subpoenas are not out of the ordinary when custody of children is at stake."

So, the action by BC and his attorneys doesn't seem to necessarily be 'out of the ordinary', or 'ruthless' necessarily, but rather, quite typical in a custody case. Time will tell I suppose how much is allowed by the judge and how much is considered relevant, but at least the requesting part... seems to not be uncommon. Good to know.

IMHO, I do NOT believe that guy read every single document. I don't see what an affair/NOT affair of Jessica and her husband has to do with BRAD being an UNFIT father. b/s

Besides, who keeps emails? NOT me.

LOL, what's Brad's lawyer think, ONE of US is any of those people he has listed?

My suspicion - it is definitely more oriented to a murder trial as there is absolutely no way affairs or no affairs relating to the friends has any possible bearing on the custody issue - kinda like Brad's own affidavits

I don't see what an affair/NOT affair of Jessica and her husband has to do with BRAD being an UNFIT father. b/s - fran

there is absolutely no way affairs or no affairs relating to the friends has any possible bearing on the custody issue - rc

Don't you guys think, though, that what he is trying to do is make it seem as though his cheating has no bearing on him being a fit father, as he has proof that others do it too, and therefore it is commonplace?

I don't see what an affair/NOT affair of Jessica and her husband has to do with BRAD being an UNFIT father. b/s - fran

there is absolutely no way affairs or no affairs relating to the friends has any possible bearing on the custody issue - rc

Don't you guys think, though, that what he is trying to do is make it seem as though his cheating has no bearing on him being a fit father, as he has proof that others do it too, and therefore it is commonplace?

Being common place - if it is - doesn't mean it is right and doesn't give him a legal right to do it as well. This is about smear and nothing more. He is vindictive more than worrying about his kids IMO.

I don't see what an affair/NOT affair of Jessica and her husband has to do with BRAD being an UNFIT father. b/s - fran

there is absolutely no way affairs or no affairs relating to the friends has any possible bearing on the custody issue - rc

Don't you guys think, though, that what he is trying to do is make it seem as though his cheating has no bearing on him being a fit father, as he has proof that others do it too, and therefore it is commonplace?

NO, I THINK he's trying to destroy everything in his path to his OWN destruction!

Seriously.....

Like others have said, what's done is done. Nancy is dead and nothing can change that. Did Brad do it? Some think so.......even LE suspects it per all accounts.

Brad KNOWS what he did and he KNOWS he can't change it and he KNOWS in his heart, he's going down for it, , IMHO.

On his way down, he's going to take anyone and everyone that opposed him!

FWIW, maybe NOW those who thought Nancy was an embellisher, see that she was NOT! He's EXACTLY what Nancy portrayed, IMHO.

JMHO
fran

PS........ALSO, FWIW, I believe that this shot over the bow, is a warning to anyone else out there, who was THINKING about possibly going to LE, you say anything to LE about your past dealings with me, you'll get the same treatment! I'll tear you to ribbons!.....jmho, fran